Category: Anti-SLAPP

The gravamen or principal thrust analysis still governs whether a cause of action is subject to an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike; so if the gist or gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint was protected conduct, the Anti-SLAPP motion should be granted even if the complaint also alleged some non-protected conduct. Disagreeing with Sheley v. Harrop (2017) 9…

Facebook was entitled to an Anti-SLAPP dismissal of claim based on third-party postings on a Facebook page about plaintiff’s sleep-deprived drivers causing serious traffic accidents, a matter of public concern. An Internet website that allows third parties to post messages, like Facebook, is a public forum. The website owner can satisfy its burden on the…

Lender’s alleged failure to (1) provide reinstatement amounts in response to a defaulted borrower’s request or (2) respond to plaintiff’s claimed tender of arrearages under the deed of trust, were protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute, but only because they occurred in the context of the borrower’s bankruptcy proceeding. In this case, the Court of…

Plaintiff could not sue defendant for defamation after defendant rated plaintiff’s website as carrying adult content and copyright-infringing material, since these ratings addressed matters of public interest and were therefore protected by the Anti-SLAPP statute. DoubleVerify sends ratings of websites to its subscribers. DoubleVerify’s confidential reports tagged Filmon’s website as one carrying adult content and…

A whistleblower suit under Health and Safety Code 1278.5 cannot be stricken under the Anti-SLAPP statute, since defendant’s alleged wrongful purpose or motive in firing plaintiff was not protected Anti-SLAPP activity. Following Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057 and Nam v. Regents of University of California (2016) 1…

Defendant movie studio’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied as plaintiff’s implied-in-fact contract claim was based on the unprotected act of not paying him for his story idea, not on the protected act of producing the film based on his idea. The district court correctly denied defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike in this case in which…

An Anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted against suit alleging that creditor violated state and federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts by recording an abstract of judgment creditor had obtained against plaintiff’s former domestic partner. An Anti-SLAPP motion to strike was properly granted in this FDCPA and RFDCPA suit against creditor and creditor’s lawyer. Creditor sued…

A discrimination suit challenging a tenure decision is not subject to an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike even if the decision followed a public hearing and statements made at the hearing are used as evidence of bias. A suit is not subject to an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike simply because it attacks a decision reached or…

Plaintiff’s lawsuit against San Diego State University was properly dismissed since, despite being couched as a contract-related claim, the suit actually sought to challenge protected news-gathering and reporting for KPBS, a station owned by the university. SDOG’s suit against inewsource and KPBS charged that the contract between them violated Gov. Code 1090 because Hearn was…

Although celebrity defendant’s comments about celebrity plaintiff ex-girlfriend’s medical history were matters of public interest and received Anti-SLAPP protection, his posting of a sonogram and medical records on social media was a bridge too far even in the relatively lenient context of celebrity gossip. Boxer Mayweather’s Facebook postings and a radio interview in which he…

Employer’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted in response to terminated CEO’s defamation claim, since the allegedly defamatory press release stated only that a third party investigation of allegations against the CEO had been undertaken and that he was terminated as a result of that investigation. A terminated CEO failed to establish he had a probability…

On an Anti-SLAPP motion attacking a “mixed” claim alleging both protected and unprotected conduct, the allegations of protected conduct are viewed separately, and if not merely incidental, are stricken unless the plaintiff shows a probability of succeeding on the claim based on those allegations alone. Following Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, this decision…